(July 3, 2018 at 9:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I've decided not to rely to "Hey, Christians/Theists threads." Soliciting the opinions of believers where they are a very small minority and probably not a good representative sample is like fishing for salt water fish in a fresh water stream.

That will certainly improve the quality of the discussions.  If only you could convince Dripshit to pack it in also.

(July 3, 2018 at 3:40 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 3:00 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: In a broad sense, I can agree. In fact, I can't recall any verse within the Bible that asserts that the Bible is literally perfect. So we can deduce that a doctrine that insists such a thing is indeed a man made doctrine, and not a God doctrine.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

Sure. I don't know why God would choose such an unreliable and ambiguous method though. It would indicate to me that he either wishes for his message to be unclear, or else this is somehow the best he can do. Neither seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To clarify this further:

God is, I'm told, alive and well right now. If he wanted to talk to you, or me, he could presumably do so directly and without risk of misunderstanding, on a personal level. Instead, he chooses to dictate a general message to everyone at a certain point, for everyone to get out of what they will. He leaves it to be mistranslated and filled with forgeries over time, while standing in the background remaining silent.

Why would God choose this method, if not to risk confusion, or to test us? From my point of view, the bible looks like any other religious text and I'd have no idea how I'm meant to pick it out from the "fake" ones. I then find nothing meaningful in any of them, anyhow. God knows this, yet refuses to update this method in any way. If it's a test, it's a really stupid and pointless one I want no part of.

Quote:Sure. I don't know why God would choose such an unreliable and ambiguous method though.

Because it is what they had available at the time, Rob.  "God" never seems to invent new technologies.  He's rather backward in that regard.

It was also easier to be told to believe when the majority of the population was illiterate and could not read the books themselves. It's astounding how little critical thinking goes into reading the bible now by theists who are literate, for there is no greater reason for atheism than actually reading the bible.

(July 4, 2018 at 1:28 am)robvalue Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 3:40 pm)robvalue Wrote: Sure. I don't know why God would choose such an unreliable and ambiguous method though. It would indicate to me that he either wishes for his message to be unclear, or else this is somehow the best he can do. Neither seem to make a lot of sense to me.

To clarify this further:

God is, I'm told, alive and well right now. If he wanted to talk to you, or me, he could presumably do so directly and without risk of misunderstanding, on a personal level. Instead, he chooses to dictate a general message to everyone at a certain point, for everyone to get out of what they will. He leaves it to be mistranslated and filled with forgeries over time, while standing in the background remaining silent.

Why would God choose this method, if not to risk confusion, or to test us? From my point of view, the bible looks like any other religious text and I'd have no idea how I'm meant to pick it out from the "fake" ones. I then find nothing meaningful in any of them, anyhow. God knows this, yet refuses to update this method in any way. If it's a test, it's a really stupid and pointless one I want no part of.

I understand your clarification.

I should clarify as well that even though I'm still largely "Protestant", I'm not hooked to sola scriptura and I believe that we can have personal divine revelations today.

Sola scriptura has made too much out of the book and not enough out of the God who inspired the book.

(July 4, 2018 at 6:12 am)Kit Wrote: It was also easier to be told to believe when the majority of the population was illiterate and could not read the books themselves.  It's astounding how little critical thinking goes into reading the bible now by theists who are literate, for there is no greater reason for atheism than actually reading the bible.

IMO the committee that wrote the Bible in the 690s did an excellent job.  They used the stories to illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34:11-28.  And they focused on just two ideas = complete obedience and loyalty to the Boss.  It really is the gold standard of fairy tales and they did it without computers.  All of the stories flow smoothly from one to another.  It's really an amazing work of literature.  The kicker is that they also put in a ton of clues to show that it was just BS.  Casual readers were never able to see that because they didn't have computers to pick out all of the clues.

(July 4, 2018 at 6:12 am)Kit Wrote: It was also easier to be told to believe when the majority of the population was illiterate and could not read the books themselves.  It's astounding how little critical thinking goes into reading the bible now by theists who are literate, for there is no greater reason for atheism than actually reading the bible.

Wow such a nice blanket statement/stereotype. Riddle me this mr thinker... what is the difference between make degrogitory stereotypical statement about a man's skin color verses how you perceive he thinks? Rather which is worse?

Is Hating a man because he is a shade lighter or darker some how 'better'  in your enlighten state that using the same EXACT SAME HATE to disparage a man on how or what you perceive he thinks?

Yeah.. good job sport.. You certainly showing us who the enlightened are...

(July 3, 2018 at 9:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I've decided not to rely to "Hey, Christians/Theists threads." Soliciting the opinions of believers where they are a very small minority and probably not a good representative sample is like fishing for salt water fish in a fresh water stream.

Isn't that how you catch bull sharks?

Quote:Wow such a nice blanket statement/stereotype. Riddle me this mr thinker... what is the difference between make degrogitory stereotypical statement about a man's skin color verses how you perceive he thinks? Rather which is worse?

Is Hating a man because he is a shade lighter or darker some how 'better'  in your enlighten state that using the same EXACT SAME HATE to disparage a man on how or what you perceive he thinks?

Yeah.. good job sport.. You certainly showing us who the enlightened are...

Wow Dirch has go full gibbering idiot mode

(July 6, 2018 at 3:08 pm)Drich Wrote: Wow such a nice blanket statement/stereotype. Riddle me this mr thinker... what is the difference between make degrogitory stereotypical statement about a man's skin color verses how you perceive he thinks? Rather which is worse?

Is Hating a man because he is a shade lighter or darker some how 'better'  in your enlighten state that using the same EXACT SAME HATE to disparage a man on how or what you perceive he thinks?

Yeah.. good job sport.. You certainly showing us who the enlightened are...

How the fuck does playing the race card have one iota to do with theists either not reading the bible or making things up after they do?